The Theory of Weakly Coupled Oscillators
Michael A. Schwemmer and Timothy J. Lewis
Department of Mathematics, One Shields Ave, University of California
Davis, CA 95616
1 Introduction1
A phase response curve (PRC) (Winfree, 1980) of an oscillating neuron measures the phase shifts in2
response to stimuli delivered at different times in its cycle. PRCs are often used to predict the phase-3
locking behavior in networks of neurons and to understand the mechanisms that underlie this behavior.4
There are two main techniques for doing this. Each of these techniques requires a different kind of PRC,5
and each is valid in a different limiting case. One approach uses PRCs to reduce neuronal dynamics to6
firing time maps, e.g (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1998; Guevara et al., 1986; Goel and Ermentrout, 2002;7
Mirollo and Strogatz, 1990; Netoff et al., 2005b; Oprisan et al., 2004). The second approach uses PRCs8
to obtain a set of differential equations for the phases of each neuron in the network.9
For the derivation of the firing time maps, the stimuli used to generate the PRC should be similar10
to the input that the neuron actually receives in the network, i.e. a facsimile of a synaptic current or11
conductance. The firing time map technique can allow one to predict phase-locking for moderately strong12
coupling, but it has the limitation that the neuron must quickly return to its normal firing cycle before13
subsequent input arrives. Typically, this implies that input to a neuron must be sufficiently brief and14
that there is only a single input to a neuron each cycle. The derivation and applications of these firing15
time maps are discussed in Chapter ZZ.16
This chapter focuses on the second technique, which is often referred to as the theory of weakly17
coupled oscillators (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1984; Kuramoto, 1984; Neu, 1979). The theory of weakly18
coupled oscillators can be used to predict phase-locking in neuronal networks with any form of coupling,19
but as the name suggests, the coupling between cells must be sufficiently “weak” for these predictions20
to be quantitatively accurate. This implies that the coupling can only have small effects on neuronal21
dynamics over any given period. However, these small effects can accumulate over time and lead to22
phase-locking in the neuronal network. The theory of weak coupling allows one to reduce the dynamics23
1
of each neuron, which could be of very high dimension, to a single differential equation describing the24
phase of the neuron. These “phase equations” take the form of a convolution of the input to the neuron25
via coupling and the neuron’s infinitesimal PRC (iPRC). The iPRC measures the response to a small26
brief (δ-function-like) perturbation and acts like an impulse response function or Green’s function for the27
oscillating neurons. Through the dimension reduction and exploiting the form of the phase equations,28
the theory of weakly coupled oscillators provides a way to identify phase-locked states and understand29
the mechanisms that underlie them.30
The main goal of this chapter is to explain how a weakly coupled neuronal network is reduced to31
its phase model description. Three different ways to ‘derive’ the phase equations are presented, each32
providing different insight into the underlying dynamics of phase response properties and phase-locking33
dynamics. The first derivation (the “Seat-of-the-Pants” deviation in section 3) is the most accessible.34
It captures the essence of the theory of weak coupling and only requires the reader to know some35
basic concepts from dynamical system theory, and have a good understanding of what it means for a36
system to behave linearly. The second derivation (The Geometric Approach in section 4) is a little more37
mathematically sophisticated and provides deeper insight into the phase response dynamics of neurons.38
To make this second derivation more accessible, we tie all concepts back to the explanations in the39
first derivation. The third derivation (The Singular Perturbation Approach in section 5) is the most40
mathematically abstract but it provides the cleanest derivation of the phase equations. It also explicitly41
shows that the iPRC can be computed as a solution of the “adjoint” equations.42
During these three explanations of the theory of weak coupling, the phase model is derived for a43
pair of coupled neurons to illustrate the reduction technique. The later sections (section 6 and 7) briefly44
discuss extensions of the phase model to include heterogeneity, noise, and large networks of neurons.45
For more mathematically detailed discussions of the theory of weakly coupled oscillators, we direct46
the reader to (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1984; Hoppensteadt and Izikevich, 1997; Kuramoto, 1984; Neu,47
1979).48
2 Neuronal Models and Reduction to a Phase Model49
2.1 General Form of Neuronal Network Models50
The general form of a single or multi-compartmental Hodgkin-Huxley-type neuronal model (Hodgkin51
and Huxley, 1952) is52 dX
dt= F (X), (1)
where X is a N -dimensional state variable vector of containing the membrane potential(s) and gating53
2
variables1, and F (X) is a vector function describing the rate of change of the variables in time. For the54
Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) model (Hodgkin and Huxley, 1952), X = [V,m, h, n]T and55
F (X) =
1C
(
−gNam3h(V − ENa) − gKn4(V − EK) − gL(V − EL) + I
)
m∞(V )−mτm(V )
h∞(V )−hτh(V )
n∞(V )−nτn(V ) ,
, (2)
In this chapter, we assume that the isolated model neuron (equation (1)) exhibits stable T -periodic56
firing (e.g. top trace of Figure 2). In the language of dynamical systems, we assume that the model57
has an asymptotically stable T -periodic limit cycle. These oscillations could be either due to intrinsic58
conductances or induced by applied current.59
A pair of coupled model neurons is described by60
dX1
dt= F (X1) + εI(X1, X2) (3)
dX2
dt= F (X2) + εI(X2, X1), (4)
where I(X1, X2) is a vector function describing the coupling between the two neurons, and ε scales61
the magnitude of the coupling term. Typically, in models of neuronal networks, cells are only coupled62
through the voltage (V ) equation. For example, a pair of electrically coupled HH neurons would have63
the coupling term64
I(X1, X2) =
1C (gC(V2 − V1))
0
0
0
. (5)
where gC is the coupling conductance of the electrical synapse.65
1The gating variables could be for ionic membrane conductances in the neuron, as well as those describingthe output of chemical synapses.
3
2.2 Phase Models, the G-Function and Phase-Locking66
The power of the theory of weakly coupled oscillators is that it reduces the dynamics of each neuronal67
oscillator in a network to single phase equation that describes the rate of change of its relative phase,68
φj . The phase model corresponding to the pair of coupled neurons (3-4) is of the form69
dφ1
dt= εH(φ2 − φ1) (6)
dφ2
dt= εH(−(φ2 − φ1)). (7)
The following sections present three different ways of deriving the function H , which is often called the70
interaction function.71
Subtracting the phase equation for cell 1 from that of cell 2, the dynamics can be further reduced to72
a single equation that governs the evolution of the phase difference between the cells, φ = φ2 − φ173
dφ
dt= ε(H(−φ) −H(φ)) = εG(φ). (8)
In the case of a pair of coupled Hodgkin-Huxley neurons (as described above), the number of equations74
in the system is reduced from the original 8 describing the dynamics of the voltage and gating variables75
to a single equation. The reduction method can also be readily applied to multi-compartment model76
neurons, e.g. (Lewis and Rinzel, 2004; Zahid and Skinner, 2009), which can render a significantly larger77
dimension reduction. In fact, the method has been applied to real neurons as well, e.g. (Mancilla et al.,78
2007).79
Note that the function G(φ) or “G-function” can be used to easily determine the phase-locking80
behavior of the coupled neurons. The zeros of the G-function, φ∗, are the steady state phase differences81
between the two cells. For example, if G(0) = 0, this implies that that the synchronous solution is a82
steady state of the system. To determine the stability of the steady state note that when G(φ) > 0, φ83
will increase and when G(φ) < 0, φ will decrease. Therefore, if the derivative of G is positive at a steady84
state (G′(φ∗) > 0) then the steady state is unstable. Similarly, if if the derivative of G is negative at a85
steady state (G′(φ∗) < 0) then the steady state is stable. Figure 1 shows an example G-function for two86
coupled identical cells. Note that this system has 4 steady states corresponding to φ = 0, T (synchrony),87
φ = T/2 (anti-phase), and two other non-synchronous states. It is also clearly seen that φ = 0, T and88
φ = T/2 are stable steady states and the other non-synchronous states are unstable. Thus, the two89
cells in this system exhibit bistability, and they will either synchronize their firing or fire in anti-phase90
depending upon the initial conditions.91
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
φ
G(φ
)
Figure 1: Example G function. The G function for two model Fast-Spiking (FS) interneurons (Erisiret al., 1999) coupled with gap junctions on the distal ends of their passive dendrites is plotted. Thearrows show the direction of the trajectories for the system. This system has four steady state solutionsφS = 0, T (synchrony), φAP = T/2 (anti-phase), and two non-synchronous states. One can see that syn-chrony and anti-phase are stable steady-states for this system (filled in circles) while the non-synchronoussolutions are unstable (open circles). Thus, depending on the initial conditions, the two neurons will firesynchronously or in anti-phase.
In sections 3, 4 and 5, we present three different ways of derive the interaction function H and there-92
fore the G-function. These derivations make several approximations that require the coupling between93
neurons to be sufficiently weak. “Sufficiently weak” implies that the neurons’ intrinsic dynamics domi-94
nate the effects due to coupling at each point in the periodic cycle, i.e. during the periodic oscillations,95
|F (Xj(t))| should be an order of magnitude greater than |εI(X1(t), X2(t))|. However, it is important to96
point out that, even though the phase models quantitatively capture the dynamics of the full system for97
sufficiently small ε, it is often the case that they can also capture the qualitative behavior for moderate98
coupling strengths (Lewis and Rinzel, 2003; Netoff et al., 2005a).99
3 A “Seat-of-the-Pants” Approach100
This section will describe perhaps the most intuitive way of deriving the phase model for a pair of coupled101
neurons (Lewis and Rinzel, 2003). The approach highlights the key aspect of the theory of weakly coupled102
oscillators, which is that neurons behave linearly in response to small perturbations and therefore obey103
the principle of superposition.104
5
3.1 Defining Phase105
T -periodic firing of a model neuronal oscillator (equation (1)) corresponds to repeated circulation around106
an asymptotically stable T -periodic limit cycle, i.e. a closed orbit in state space X . We will denote this107
T -periodic limit cycle solution as XLC(t). The phase of a neuron is a measure of the time that has108
elapsed as the neuron’s moves around its periodic orbit, starting from an arbitrary reference point in the109
cycle. We define the phase of the periodically firing neuron j at time t to be110
θj(t) = (t+ φj) mod T, (9)
where θj = 0 is set to be at the peak of the neurons’ spike (Figure 2).2 The constant φj , which is referred111
to as the relative phase of the jth neuron, is determined by the position of the neuron on the limit cycle at112
time t = 0. Note that each phase of the neuron corresponds to a unique position on the cell’s T -periodic113
limit cycle, and any solution of the uncoupled neuron model that is on the limit cycle can be expressed114
as115
Xj(t) = XLC(θj(t)) = XLC(t+ φj). (10)
When a neuron is perturbed by coupling current from other neurons or by any other external stimulus,116
its dynamics no longer exactly adhere to the limit cycle, and the exact correspondence of time to phase117
(equation (9)) is no longer valid. However, when perturbations are sufficiently weak, the neuron’s intrinsic118
dynamics are dominant. This ensures that the perturbed system remains close to the limit cycle and the119
inter-spike intervals are close to the intrinsic period T . Therefore, we can approximate the solution of120
neuron j by Xj(t) ≃ XLC(t+ φj(t)), where the relative phase φj is now a function of time t. Over each121
cycle of the oscillations, the weak perturbations to the neurons produce only small changes in φj . These122
changes are negligible over a single cycle, but they can slowly accumulate over many cycles and produce123
substantial effects on the relative firing times of the neurons.124
The goal now is to understand how the relative phase φj(t) of the coupled neurons evolves slowly in125
time. To do this, we first consider the response of a neuron to small abrupt current pulses.126
3.2 The Infinitesimal Phase Response Curve127
Suppose that a small brief square current pulse of amplitude εI0 and duration ∆t is delivered to a neuron128
when it is at phase θ∗. This small, brief current pulse causes the membrane potential to abruptly increase129
2Phase is often normalized by the period T or by T/2π, so that 0 ≤ θ < 1 or 0 ≤ θ < 2π respectively. Here, we do notnormalize phase and take 0 ≤ θ < T .
6
0 50 100 150
−50
0
50
V(t
)(m
V)
0 50 100 1500
10
20
30
Time (msec)
θ(t
)
Figure 2: Phase. a) Voltage trace for the Fast-Spiking interneuron model from Erisir et al. (Erisiret al., 1999) with Iappl = 35 µA/cm2 showing T-periodic firing. b) The phase, θ(t) of these oscillationsincreases linearly from 0 to T , and we have assumed that zero phase occurs at the peak of the voltagespike.
by δV ≃ εI0∆t/C, i.e. the change in voltage will approximately equal the total charge delivered to the130
cell by the stimulus, εI0∆t, divided by the capacitance of the neuron, C. In general, this perturbation131
can cause the cell to fire sooner (phase advance) or later (phase delay) than it would have fired without132
the perturbation. The magnitude and sign of this phase shift depends on the amplitude and duration of133
the stimulus, as well as the phase in the oscillation at which the stimulus was delivered. This relationship134
is quantified by the Phase Response Curve (PRC), which gives the phase shift ∆φ as a function of the135
phase θ∗ for a fixed εI0∆t (Figure 3).136
For sufficiently small and brief stimuli, the neuron will respond in a linear fashion, and the PRC will137
scale linearly with the magnitude of the current stimulus138
∆φ(θ∗) ≃ ZV (θ∗) δV = ZV (θ∗)
(
1
CεI0∆t
)
, 0 ≤ θ∗ < T, (11)
where ZV (θ∗) describes the proportional phase shift as a function of the phase of the stimulus. The139
function ZV (θ) is known as the infinitesimal phase response curve (iPRC) or the phase-dependent sen-140
sitivity function for voltage perturbations. The iPRC ZV (θ) quantifies the normalized phase shift due141
to an infinitesimally small δ-function-like voltage-perturbation delivered at any given phase on the limit142
cycle.143
7
0 20 40 60 80 100−100
−50
0
50V
olt
age
(mV
)
0
1
2
3
Time (msec)
∆θ(t
)
0 θ∗ T
∆θ(θ∗)
Figure 3: Measuring the Phase Response Curve from Neurons. The voltage trace and corre-sponding PRC is shown for the same FS model neuron from Figure 2. The PRC is measured froma periodically firing neuron by delivering small current pulses at every point, θ∗, along its cycle andmeasuring the subsequent change in period, ∆θ, caused by the current pulse.
3.3 The Phase Model for a Pair of Weakly Coupled Cells144
Now we can reconsider the pair of weakly coupled neuronal oscillators (equations (3-4)). Recall that,145
because the coupling is weak, the neurons’ intrinsic dynamics dominate the dynamics of the coupled-cell146
system, and Xj(t) ≃ XLC(θj(t)) = XLC(t+ φj(t)) for j = 1, 2. This assumes that the coupling current147
can only affect the speed at which cells move around their limit cycle and does not affect the amplitude148
of the oscillations. Thus, the effects of the coupling are entirely captured in the slow time dynamics of149
the relative phases of the cells φj(t).150
The assumption of weak coupling also ensures that the perturbations to the neurons are sufficiently151
small so that the neurons respond linearly to the coupling current. That is, (i) the small phase shifts152
of the neurons due to the presence of the coupling current for a brief time ∆t can be approximated153
using the iPRC (equation (11)), and (ii) these small phase shifts in response to the coupling current sum154
linearly (i.e. the principle of superposition holds). Therefore, by equation (11), the phase shift due to155
the coupling current from t to t+ ∆t is156
8
∆φj(t) = φj(t+ ∆t) − φj(t)
≃ ZV (θj(t)) (εI(Xj(t), Xk(t))) ∆t.
= ZV (t+ φj(t)) (εI(XLC(t+ φj(t)), XLC(t+ φk(t)))) ∆t. (12)
Furthermore, by dividing the above equation by ∆t and taking the limit as ∆t → 0, we obtain a system157
of differential equations that govern the evolution of the relative phases of the two neurons158
dφjdt
= ε ZV (t+ φj) I(XLC(t+ φj), XLC(t+ φk)), j, k = 1, 2; j 6= k. (13)
Note that, by integrating this system of differential equations to find the solution φj(t), we are assuming159
that phase shifts in response to the coupling current sum linearly.160
The explicit time-dependence on the righthand side of equation (13) can be eliminated by “averaging”161
over the period T . Note that ZV (t) and XLC(t) are T -periodic functions, and the scaling of the righthand162
side of equation (13) by the small parameter ε indicates that changes in the relative phases φj occur on163
a much slower time scale than T . Therefore, we can integrate the righthand side over the full period T164
holding the values of φj constant to find the average rate of change of the φj over a cycle. Thus, we165
obtain equations that approximate the slow time evolution of the relative phases φj166
dφjdt
= ε1
T
∫ T
0
ZV (t)(
I(XLC(t), XLC(t+ φk − φj)))
dt
= εH(φk − φj), j, k = 1, 2; j 6= k, (14)
i.e. the relative phases φj are assumed to be constant with respect to the integral over T in t, but they167
vary in t. This averaging process is made rigorous by averaging theory (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1991;168
Guckenheimer and Holmes, 1983).169
We have reduced the dynamics of a pair of weakly coupled neuronal oscillators to an autonomous170
system of two differential equations describing the phases of the neurons and therefore finished the first171
derivation of the phase equations for a pair of weakly coupled neurons.3 Note that the above derivation172
can be easily altered to obtain the phase model of a neuronal oscillator subjected to T -periodic external173
forcing as well. The crux of the derivation was identifying the iPRC and exploiting the approximately174
3Note that this reduction is not valid when T is of the same order of magnitude as the time scale for the changes dueto the weak coupling interactions (e.g. close to a SNIC bifurcation), however an alternative reduction can be performed inthis case (Ermentrout, 1996).
9
linear behavior of the system in response to weak inputs. In fact, it is useful to note that the interaction175
function H takes the form of a convolution of the iPRC and the coupling current, i.e. the input to the176
neuron. Therefore, one can think of the iPRC as the oscillator acting like an impulse response function177
or Green’s function.178
3.3.1 Averaging theory179
Averaging theory (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1991; Guckenheimer and Holmes, 1983) states that there is180
a change of variables that maps solutions of181
dφ
dt= εg(φ, t), (15)
where g(φ, t) is a T -periodic function in φ and t, to solutions of182
dϕ
dt= εg(ϕ) + O(ε2), (16)
where183
g(ϕ) =1
T
∫ T
0
g(ϕ, t)dt, (17)
and O(ε2) is Landau’s “Big O” notation which represents terms that either have a scaling factor of ε2184
or go to zero at the same rate as ε2 goes to zero as ε goes to zero.185
4 A Geometric Approach186
In this section, we describe a geometric approach to the theory of weakly coupled oscillators originally187
introduced by Yoshiki Kuramoto (Kuramoto, 1984). The main asset of this approach is that it gives a188
beautiful geometric interpretation of the iPRC and deepens our understanding of the underlying mech-189
anisms of the phase response properties of neurons.190
4.1 The One-to-One Map Between Points on the Limit Cycle and Phase191
Consider again a model neuron (1) that has a stable T -periodic limit cycle solution, XLC(t) such that192
the neuron exhibits a T -periodic firing pattern (e.g. top trace of Figure 2). Recall that the phase of193
the oscillator along its limit cycle is defined as θ(t) = (t + φ) mod T , where the relative phase φ is a194
constant that is determined by the initial conditions. Note that there is a one-to-one correspondence195
between phase and each point on the limit cycle. That is, the limit cycle solution takes phase to a unique196
10
point on the cycle, X = XLC(θ), and its inverse maps each point on the limit cycle to a unique phase,197
θ = X−1LC(X) = Φ(X).198
Note that it follows immediately from the definition of phase (9) that the rate of change of phase in199
time along the limit cycle is equal to 1, i.e. dθdt = 1. Therefore, if we differentiate the map Φ(X) with200
respect to time using the chain rule for vector functions, we obtain the following useful relationship201
dθ
dt= ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) · dXLC
dt= ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) · F (XLC(t))) = 1, (18)
where ∇XΦ is the gradient of the map Φ(X) with respect to the vector of the neuron’s state variables202
X = (x1, x2, · · · , xN )203
∇XΦ(X) =
[(
∂Φ
∂x1,∂Φ
∂x2, ...,
∂Φ
∂xN
)∣
∣
∣
∣
X
]T
. (19)
(We have defined the gradient as a column vector for notational reasons).204
4.2 Asymptotic Phase and the Infinitesimal Phase Response Curve205
The map θ = Φ(X) is well-defined for all points X on the limit cycle. We can extend the domain of206
Φ(X) to points off the limit cycle by defining the concept of asymptotic phase. If X0 is a point on the207
limit cycle and Y0 is a point in a neighborhood of the limit cycle4, then we say that Y0 has the same208
asymptotic phase as X0 if ||X(t;X0) −X(t;Y0)|| → 0 as t → ∞. This means that the solution starting209
at the initial point Y0 off the limit cycle converges to the solution starting at the point X0 on the limit210
cycle as time goes to infinity. Therefore, Φ(Y0) = Φ(X0). The set of all points off the limit cycle that211
have the same asymptotic phase as the point X0 on the limit cycle is known as the isochron (Winfree,212
1980) for phase θ = Φ(X0). Figure 4 shows some isochrons around the limit cycle for the Morris-Lecar213
neuron (Morris and Lecar, 1981). It is important to note that the figure only plots isochrons for a few214
phases and that every point on the limit cycle has a corresponding isochron.215
Equipped with the concept of asymptotic phase, we can now show that the iPRC is in fact the216
gradient of the phase map ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) by considering the following phase resetting “experiment”.217
Suppose that, at time t, the neuron is on the limit cycle in state X(t) = XLC(θ∗) with corresponding218
phase θ∗ = Φ(X(t)). At this time, it receives a small abrupt external perturbation εU , where ε is the219
magnitude of the perturbation and U is the unit vector in the direction of the perturbation in state space.220
Immediately after the perturbation, the neuron is in the state XLC(θ∗) + εU , and its new asymptotic221
phase is θ∗ = Φ(XLC(θ∗) + εU). Using Taylor series,222
4In fact, the point Y0 can be anywhere in the basin of attraction of the limit cycle.
11
Figure 4: Example Isochron Structure. a) The limit cycle and isochron structure for the Morris-Lecar neuron (Morris and Lecar, 1981) is plotted along with the nullclines for the system. b) Blow upof a region on the left side of the limit cycle showing how the same strength perturbation in the voltagedirection can cause different size phase delays and even a phase advance. c) Blow up of a region on theright side of the limit cycle showing also that the same size voltage perturbation can cause different sizephase advances.
θ = Φ(XLC(θ∗) + εU) = Φ(XLC(θ∗)) + ∇XΦ(XLC(θ∗)) · (εU) + O(ε2). (20)
Keeping only the linear term (i.e. O(ε) term), the phase shift of the neuron as a function of the phase223
θ∗ at which it received the εU perturbation is given by224
∆φ(θ∗) = θ − θ∗ ≃ ∇XΦ(XLC(θ∗)) · (εU). (21)
12
As was done in section 3.2, we normalize the phase shift by the magnitude of the stimulus,225
∆φ(θ∗)
ε≃ ∇XΦ(XLC(θ∗)) · U = Z(θ∗) · U. (22)
Note that Z(θ) = ∇XΦ(XLC(θ)) is the iPRC. It quantifies the normalized phase shift due to a small226
delta-function-like perturbation delivered at any given on the limit cycle. As was the case for the iPRC227
ZV derived in the previous section (see equation (11)), ∇XΦ(XLC(θ)) captures only the linear response228
of the neuron and is quantitively accurate only for sufficiently small perturbations. However, unlike ZV ,229
∇XΦ(XLC(θ)) captures the response to perturbations in any direction in state space and not only in one230
variable (e.g. the membrane potential). That is, ∇XΦ(XLC(θ)) is the vector iPRC; its components are231
the iPRCs for every variable in the system (see Figure 5).232
0 5 10 15−40
−20
0
20
V(t
)
0 5 10 15
−0.02
0
0.02
ZV
(t)
0 5 10 150.020.040.060.080.1
0.120.14
Time (msec)
w(t
)
0 5 10 15
−0.5
0
0.5
Time (msec)
Zw(t
)
Figure 5: iPRCs for the Morris-Lecar Neuron. The voltage, V (t) and channel, w(t), components ofthe limit cycle for the same Morris-Lecar neuron as in Figure 4 are plotted along with their correspondingiPRCs. Note that the shape of voltage iPRC can be inferred from the insets of Figure 4. For example,the isochronal structure in Figure 4 (c) reveals that perturbations in the voltage component will causephase advances when the voltage is increasing from roughly 30 to 38 mV .
In the typical case of a single-compartment HH model neuron subject to an applied current pulse233
(which perturbs only the membrane potential), the perturbation would be of the form εU = (u, 0, 0, · · · , 0)234
where x1 is the membrane potential V . By equation (20), the phase shift is235
13
∆φ(θ) =∂Φ
∂V(XLC(θ)) u = ZV (θ) u, (23)
which is the same as the equation (11) derived in the previous section.236
With the understanding that ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) is the vector iPRC, we now derive the phase model for237
two weakly coupled neurons.238
4.3 A Pair of Weakly Coupled Oscillators239
Now consider the system of weakly coupled neurons (3-4). We can use the map Φ to take the variables240
X1(t) and X2(t) to their corresponding asymptotic phase, i.e. θj(t) = Φ(Xj(t)) for j = 1, 2. By the241
chain rule, we obtain the change in phase with respect to time242
dθjdt
= ∇XΦ(Xj(t)) ·dXj
dt
= ∇XΦ(Xj(t)) · [F (Xj(t)) + εI(Xj(t), Xk(t))]
= ∇XΦ(Xj(t)) · F (Xj(t)) + ∇XΦ(Xj(t)) · [εI(Xj(t), Xk(t))]
= 1 + ε∇XΦ(Xj(t)) · I(Xj(t), Xk(t)), (24)
where we have used the “useful” relation (18). Note that the above equations are exact. However, in243
order to solve the equations for θj(t), we would already have to know the full solutions X1(t) and X2(t),244
in which case you wouldn’t need to reduce the system to a phase model. Therefore, we exploit that fact245
that ε is small and make the approximation Xj(t) ∼ XLC(θj(t)) = XLC(t + φj(t)), i.e. the coupling is246
assumed to be weak enough so that it does not affect the amplitude of the limit cycle, but it can affect247
the rate at which the neuron moves around its limit cycle. By making this approximation in equation248
(24) and making the change of variables θj(t) = t + φj(t), we obtain the equations for the evolution of249
the relative phases of the two neurons250
dφjdt
= ε∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φj(t))) · I(XLC(t+ φj(t)), XLC(t+ φk(t))). (25)
Note that these equations are the vector versions of the equations (13) with the iPRC written as251
∇XΦ(XLC(t)). As described in the previous section, we can average these equations over the period252
T to eliminate the explicit time dependence and obtain the phase model for the pair of coupled neurons253
dφjdt
= ε1
T
∫ T
0
∇XΦ(XLC(t)) · I(XLC(t), XLC(t+ (φk − φj)))dt = εH(φk − φj). (26)
14
Note that, while the above approach to deriving the phase equations provides substantial insight into254
the geometry of the neuronal phase response dynamics, it does not provide a computational method255
to compute the iPRC for model neurons, i.e. we still must directly measure the iPRC using extensive256
numerical simulations as described in the previous section.257
5 A Singular Perturbation Approach258
In this section, we describe the singular perturbation approach to derive the theory of weakly coupled259
oscillators. This systematic approach was developed independently by Malkin (Malkin, 1949; Malkin,260
1956), Neu (Neu, 1979), and Ermentrout and Kopell (Ermentrout and Kopell, 1984). The major practical261
asset of this approach is that it provides a simple method to compute iPRCs for model neurons.262
Consider again the system of weakly coupled neurons (3-4). We assume that the isolated neurons263
have asymptotically stable T -periodic limit cycle solutions XLC(t) and that coupling is weak (i.e. ε is264
small). As previously stated, the weak coupling has small effects on the dynamics of the neurons. On265
the time-scale of a single cycle, these effects are negligible. However, the effects can slowly accumulate266
on a much slower time-scale and have a substantial influence on the relative firing times of the neurons.267
We can exploit the differences in these two time-scales and use the method of multiple scales to derive268
the phase model.269
First, we define a “fast time” tf = t, which is on the time-scale of the period of the isolated neuronal270
oscillator, and a “slow time” ts = εt, which is on the time-scale that the coupling affects the dynamics of271
the neurons. Time, t, is thus a function of both the fast and slow times, i.e. t = f(tf , ts). By the chain272
rule, ddt = ∂
∂tf+ ε ∂
∂ts. We then assume that solutions X1(t) and X2(t) can be expressed as power-series273
in ε that are dependent both on tf and ts,274
Xj(t) = X0j (tf , ts) + εX1
j (tf , ts) + O(ε2), j = 1, 2.
Substituting these expansions into equations (3-4) yields275
∂X0j
∂tf+ ε
∂X0j
∂ts+ ε
∂X1j
∂tf+ O(ε2) = F (X0
j + εX1j + O(ε2)) (27)
+εI(X0j + εX1
j + O(ε2), X0k + εX1
k + O(ε2)), j, k = 1, 2; j 6= k.
Using Taylor series to expand the vector functions F and I in terms of ε, we obtain276
15
F (X0j + εX1
j + O(ε2)) = F (X0j ) + εDF (X0
j )X1j + O(ε2) (28)
εI(X0j + εX1
j + O(ε2), X0k + εX1
k + O(ε2)) = εI(X0j , X
0k) + O(ε2), (29)
where DF (X0j ) is the Jacobian, i.e. matrix of partial derivatives, of the vector function F (Xj) evaluated277
at X0j . We then plug these expressions into equations (27), collect like terms of ε, and equate the278
coefficients of like terms.5279
The leading order (O(1)) terms yield280
∂X0j
∂tf= F (X0
j ), j = 1, 2. (30)
These are the equations that describe the dynamics of the uncoupled cells. Thus, to leading order, each281
cell exhibits the T -periodic limit cycle solution X0j (tf , ts) = XLC(tf + φj(ts)). Note that equation (30)282
implies that the relative phase φj is constant in tf , but it can still evolve on the slow time-scale ts.283
Substituting the solutions for the leading order equations (and shifting tf appropriately), the O(ε)284
terms of equations (27) yield285
LX1j ≡
∂X1j
∂tf−DF (XLC(tf ))X
1j = I(XLC(tf ), XLC(tf − (φj(ts) − φk(ts)))) −X ′
LC(tf )dφjdts
. (31)
To simplify notation, we have defined the linear operator LX ≡ ∂X∂tf
−DF (XLC(tf ))X , which acts on a286
T -periodic domain and is therefore bounded. Note that equation (31) is a linear differential equation with287
T -periodic coefficients. In order for our power series solutions for X1(t) and X2(t) to exist, a solution to288
equation (31) must exist. Therefore, we need to find conditions that guarantee the existence of a solution289
to equation (31), i.e. conditions that ensure that the righthand side of equation (31) is in the range of290
the operator L. The Fredholm Alternative explicitly provides us with these conditions.291
Theorem (Fredholm’s Alternative). Consider the following equation
(∗) Lx =dx
dt+A(t)x = f(t); x ∈ R
N ,
where A(t) and f(t) are continuous and T-periodic. Then, there is a continuous T-periodic solution x(t)
5Because the equation should hold for arbitrary ε, coefficients of like terms must be equal.
16
to (*) if and only if
(∗∗) 1
T
∫ T
0
Z(t) · f(t)dt = 0,
for each continuous T-periodic solution, Z(t), to the adjoint problem
L∗x = −dZdt
+ {A(t)}TZ = 0.
In the language of the above theorem,
A(t) = −DF (XLC(tf )) and f(t) = I(XLC(tf ), XLC(tf − (φj(ts) − φk(ts)))) −X ′
LC(tf )dφjdts
.
Thus, the solvability condition (**) requires that292
1
T
∫ T
0
Z(tf ) ·[
I(XLC(tf ), XLC(tf − (φj(ts) − φk(ts)))) −X ′
LC(tf )dφjdts
]
dtf = 0 (32)
where Z is a T -periodic solution of the adjoint equation293
L∗Z = − ∂Z
∂tf−DF (XLC(tf ))
TZ = 0. (33)
Rearranging equation (32),294
dφjdts
=1
T
∫ T
0
Z(tf ) · [I(XLC(tf ), XLC(tf − (φj(ts) − φk(ts))))] dtf (34)
where we have normalized Z(tf ) by295
1
T
∫ T
0
Z(tf ) · [X ′
LC(tf )]dtf =1
T
∫ T
0
Z(tf ) · F (XLC(tf ))dtf = 1. (35)
This normalization of Z(tf ) is equivalent to setting Z(0) · X ′
LC(0) = Z(0) · F (X ′
LC(0)) = 1, because296
Z(t) ·X ′
LC(t) is a constant (see below).297
Finally, recalling that ts = εt and tf = t, we obtain the phase model for the pair of coupled neurons298
dφjdt
= ε1
T
∫ T
0
Z(t) · [I(
XLC(t), XLC(t− (φj − φk)))
]dt = εH(φk − φj), (36)
By comparing these phase equations with those derived in the previous sections, it is clear that the299
appropriately normalized solution to the adjoint equations Z(t) is the iPRC of the neuronal oscillator.300
17
5.0.1 A Note on the Normalization of Z(t)301
d
dt[Z(t) · F (XLC(t))] =
dZ
dt· F (XLC(t)) + Z(t) · d
dt[F (XLC(t))]
= (−DF (XLC(t))TZ) · F (XLC(t)) + Z(t) · (DF (XLC(t))X ′
LC(t))
= −Z(t) · (DF (XLC(t))F (XLC(t))) + Z(t) · (DF (XLC(t))F (XLC(t)))
= 0.
This implies that Z(t)·F (XLC(t)) is a constant. The integral form of the normalization of Z(t) (equation302
(35)) implies that this constant is 1. Thus, Z(t) · F (XLC(t)) = Z(t) · X ′
LC(t) = 1 for all t, including303
t = 0.304
5.1 Adjoints and Gradients305
The intrepid reader who has trudged their way courageously through the preceding three sections may306
be wondering if there is direct way to relate the gradient of the phase map ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) to solution307
of the adjoint equation Z(t). Here, we present Brown et. al’s (Brown et al., 2004) direct proof that308
∇XΦ(XLC(t)) satisfies the adjoint equation (33) and the normalization condition (35).309
Consider again the system of differential equations for an isolated neuronal oscillator (1) that has310
an asymptotically stable T -periodic limit cycle solution XLC(t). Suppose that X(t) = XLC(t + φ) is a311
solution of this system that is on the limit cycle, which starts at point X(0) = XLC(φ). Further suppose312
that Y (t) = XLC(t+φ)+p(t) is a solution that starts at from the initial condition Y (0) = XLC(φ)+p(0),313
where p(0) is small in magnitude. Because this initial perturbation p(0) is small and the limit cycle is314
stable, (i) p(t) remains small and, to O(|p|), p(t) satisfies the linearized system315
dp
dt= DF (XLC(t+ φ))p, (37)
and (ii) the phase difference between the two solutions is316
∆φ = Φ(XLC(t+ φ) + p(t)) − Φ(XLC(t+ φ)) = ∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)) · p(t) + O(|p|2). (38)
Furthermore, while the asymptotic phases of the solutions evolve in time, the phase difference between317
the solutions ∆φ remains constant. Therefore, by differentiating equation (38), we see that to O(|p|)318
18
0 =d
dt[∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)) · p(t)]
=d
dt[∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ))] · p(t) + ∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)) · dp
dt
=d
dt[∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ))] · p(t) + ∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)) · (DF (XLC(t+ φ))p(t))
=d
dt[∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ))] · p(t) +
(
DF (XLC(t+ φ))T∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)))
· p(t)
=
{
d
dt[∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ))] +DF (XLC(t+ φ))T (∇XΦ(XLC(t+ φ)))
}
· p(t).
Because p is arbitrary, the above argument implies that ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) solves the adjoint equation (33).319
The normalization condition simply follows from the definition of the phase map (see equation(18)), i.e.320
dθ
dt= ∇XΦ(XLC(t)) ·X ′
LC(t) = 1. (39)
5.2 Computing the PRC Using the Adjoint method321
As stated in this beginning of this section, the major practical asset of the singular perturbation approach322
is that it provides a simple method to compute the iPRC for model neurons. Specifically, the iPRC is a323
T -period solution to324
dZ
dt= −DF (XLC(t))TZ (40)
subject to the normalization constraint325
Z(0) ·X ′
LC(0) = 1. (41)
This equation is the adjoint equation for the isolated model neuron (equation (1)) linearized around the326
limit cycle solution XLC(t).327
In practice, the solution to equation (40) is found by integrating the equation backwards in time328
(Williams and Bowtell, 1997). The adjoint system has the opposite stability of the original system329
(equation (1)), which has an asymptotically stable T -periodic limit cycle solution. Thus, we integrate330
backwards in time from an arbitrary initial condition so as to dampen out the transients and arrive at331
the (unstable) periodic solution of equation (40). To obtain the iPRC, we normalize the periodic solution332
using (41). This algorithm is automated in the software package XPPAUT (Ermentrout, 2002), which is333
available for free on Bard Ermentrout’s webpage www.math.pitt.edu/ ∼ bard/bardware/.334
19
6 Extensions of Phase Models for Pairs of Coupled Cells335
Up to this point, we have been dealing solely with pairs of identical oscillators that are weakly cou-336
pled. In this section, we show how the phase reduction technique can be extended to incorporate weak337
heterogeneity and weak noise.338
6.1 Weak Heterogeneity339
Suppose that the following system340
dXj
dt= Fj(Xj) + εI(Xk, Xj) = F (Xj) + ε [fj(Xj) + I(Xk, Xj)] (42)
describes two weakly coupled neuronal oscillators (note that the vector functions Fj(Xj) are now specific341
to the neuron). If the two neurons are weakly heterogeneous, then their underlying limit cycles are342
equivalent up to an O(ε) difference. That is, Fj(Xj) = F (Xj) + εfj(Xj), where fj(Xj) is a vector343
function that captures the O(ε) differences in the dynamics of cell 1 and cell 2 from the function F (Xj).344
These differences may occur in various places such as the value of the neurons’ leakage conductances,345
the applied currents, or the leakage reversal potentials, to name a few.346
As in the previous sections, equation (42) can be reduced to the phase model347
dφjdt
= ε
(
1
T
∫ T
0
Z(t) ·[
fj(XLC(t)) + I(XLC(t), XLC(t+ φk − φj))]
dt
)
= εωj + εH(φk − φj), (43)
where ωj = 1T
∫ T
0Z(t) · fj(XLC(t))dt represents the difference in the intrinsic frequencies of the two348
neurons caused by the presence of the weak heterogeneity. If we now let φ = φ2 − φ1, we obtain349
dφ
dt= ε(H(−φ) −H(φ) + ∆ω)
= ε(G(φ) + ∆ω), (44)
where ∆ω = ω2 − ω1. The fixed points of (44) are given by G(φ) = −∆ω. The addition of the350
heterogeneity changes the phase-locking properties of the neurons. For example, suppose that in the351
absence of heterogeneity (∆ω = 0) our G function is the same as in Figure 1, in which the synchronous352
solution, φS = 0, and the anti-phase solution, φAP , are stable. Once heterogeneity is added, the effect will353
20
be to move the neurons away from either firing in synchrony or anti-phase to a constant non-synchronous354
phase shift, as in Figure 6. For example, if neuron 1 is faster than neuron 2, then ∆ω < 0 and the stable355
steady-state phase-locked values of φ will be shifted to left of synchrony and to the left of anti-phase,356
as is seen in Figure 6 when ∆ω = −0.5. Thus, the neurons will still be phase-locked, but in an non-357
synchronous state that will either be to the left of synchronous state or to the left of the anti-phase state358
depending on the initial conditions. Furthermore, if ∆ω is decreased further, saddle node bifurcations359
occur in which a stable and unstable fixed point collide and annihilate each other.360
0 2 4 6 8 10 12−0.2
−0.15
−0.1
−0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
φ
G(φ
)
∆ω =0.17
∆ω = 0.05
∆ω = -0.05
∆ω = -0.17
Figure 6: Example G Function with Varying Heterogeneity. Example of varying levels of hetero-geneity with the same G function as in Figure 1. One can see that the addition of any level of heterogeneitywill cause the stable steady-state phase-locked states to move to away from the synchronous and anti-phase states to non-synchronous phase-locked states. Furthermore, if the heterogeneity is large enough,the stable steady-state phase-locked states will disappear completely through saddle node bifurcations.
6.2 Weakly Coupled Neurons with Noise361
In this section, we show how two weakly coupled neurons with additive white noise in the voltage362
component can be analyzed using a probability density approach (Kuramoto, 1984; Pfeuty et al., 2005).363
The following set of differential equations represent two weakly heterogeneous neurons being per-364
turbed with additive noise365
dXj
dt= Fj(Xj) + εI(Xk, Xj) + δNj(t), i, j = 1, 2; i 6= j, (45)
21
where δ scales the noise term to ensure that it is O(ε). The term Nj(t) is a vector with Gaussian white366
noise, ξj(t), with zero mean and unit variance (i.e. 〈ξj(t)〉 = 0 and 〈ξj(t)ξj(t′)〉 = δ(t− t′)) in the voltage367
component, and zeros in the other variable components. In this case, the system can be mapped to the368
phase model369
dφjdt
= ε(ωj +H(φk − φj)) + δσφξj(t), (46)
where the term σφ =(
1T
∫ T
0 [Z(t)]2dt)1/2
comes from averaging the noisy phase equations (Kuramoto,370
1984). If we now let φ = φ2 − φ1 we arrive at371
dφ
dt= ε(∆ω + (H(−φ) −H(φ))) + δσφ
√2η(t), (47)
where ∆ω = ω2 − ω1 and√
2η(t) = ξ2(t) − ξ1(t) where η(t) is Gaussian white noise with zero mean and372
unit variance.373
The non-linear Langevin equation (47) corresponds to the Fokker-Planck equation (Risken, 1989;374
Stratonovich, 1967; Van Kampen, 1981)375
∂ρ
∂t(φ, t) = − ∂
∂φ[ε(∆ω +G(φ))ρ(φ, t)] + (δσφ)
2 ∂2ρ
∂φ2(φ, t), (48)
where ρ(φ, t) is the probability that the neurons have a phase difference of φ at time t. The steady-state376
(
∂ρ∂t = 0
)
solution of equation (48) is377
ρ(φ) =1
NeM(φ)
[
e−αT∆ω − 1∫ T
0e−M(φ)dφ
∫ φ
0
e−M(φ)dφ+ 1
]
, (49)
where378
M(φ) = α
∫ φ
0
(∆ω +G(φ))dφ, (50)
N is a normalization factor so that∫ T
0 ρ(φ)dφ = 1, and α = εδ2σ2
φ
represents the ratio of the strength of379
the coupling to the variance of the noise.380
The steady-state distribution ρ(φ) tells us the probability that the two neurons will have a phase381
difference of φ as time goes to infinity. Furthermore, Pfeuty et al. (Pfeuty et al., 2005) showed that382
spike-train cross-correlogram of the two neurons is equivalent to the steady state distribution (49) for383
small ε. Figure 7 (a) shows the cross-correlogram for two identical neurons (∆ω = 0) using the G function384
from Figure 1. One can see that there is a large peak in the distribution around the synchronous solution385
(φS = 0), and a smaller peak around the anti-phase solution (φAP = T/2). Thus, the presence of the386
22
noise works to smear out the probability distribution around the stable steady-states of the noiseless387
system.388
Figure 7: The Steady-State Phase Difference Distribution ρ(φ) is the Cross-Correlogram forthe Two Neurons. (a) Cross-correlogram for the G function given in Figure 1 with α = 10. Note thatwe have changed the x-axis so that φ now ranges from −T/2 to T/2. The cross-correlogram has two peakscorresponding to the synchronous and anti-phase phase-locked states. This is due to the fact that inthe noiseless system, synchrony and anti-phase were the only stable fixed points. (b) Cross-correlogramsfor two levels of heterogeneity from Figure 6. The cross-correlogram from (a) is plotted as the lightsolid line for comparison. The peaks in the cross-correlogram have shifted to correspond with the stablenon-synchronous steady-states in Figure 6.
If heterogeneity is added to the G function as in Figure 6, one would expect that the peaks of the389
cross-correlogram would shift accordingly so as to correspond to the stable steady-states of the noiseless390
system. Figure 7 (b) shows that this is indeed the case. If ∆ω < 0 (∆ω > 0), the stable steady-states391
of the noiseless system shift to the left (right) of synchrony and to the left (right) of anti-phase, thus392
causing the peaks of the cross-correlogram to shift left (right) as well. If we were to increase (decrease)393
the noise, i.e. decrease (increase) α, then we would see that the variance of the peaks around the stable394
steady-states becomes larger (smaller), according to equation (49).395
7 Networks of Weakly Coupled Neurons396
In this section, we extend the phase model description to examine networks of weakly coupled neuronal397
oscillators.398
Suppose we have a one spatial dimension network of M weakly coupled and weakly heterogeneous399
neurons400
23
dXi
dt= Fi(Xi) +
ε
M0
M∑
j=1
sijI(Xj , Xi), i = 1, ...,M ; (51)
where S = {sij} is the connectivity matrix of the network, M0 is the maximum number of cells that any401
neuron is connected to and the factor of 1M0
ensures that the perturbation from the coupling is O(ε). As402
before, this system can be reduced to the phase model403
dφidt
= ωi +ε
M0
M∑
j=1
sijH(φj − φi), i = 1, ...,M. (52)
The connectivity matrix, S, can be utilized to examine the effects of network topology on the phase-404
locking behavior of the network. For example, if we wanted to examine the activity of a network in which405
each neuron is connected to every other neuron, i.e. all-to-all coupling, then406
sij = 1, i, j = 1, ...,M. (53)
Because of the non-linear nature of equation (52), analytic solutions normally cannot be found.407
Furthermore, it can be quite difficult to analyze for large numbers of neurons. Fortunately, there exist408
two approaches to simplifying equation (52) so that mathematical analysis can be utilized, which is not409
to say that simulating the system equation (52) is not useful. Depending upon the type of interaction410
function that is used, various types of interesting phase-locking behavior can be seen, such as total411
synchrony, traveling oscillatory waves, or, in two spatial dimensional networks, spiral waves and target412
patterns, e.g. (Ermentrout and Kleinfeld, 2001; Kuramoto, 1984).413
A useful method of determining the level of synchrony for the network (52) is the so-called Kuramoto414
synchronization index (Kuramoto, 1984)415
re2πiψ/T =1
M
M∑
j=1
e2πiφj/T , (54)
where i =√−1, ψ is the average phase of the network, and r is the level of synchrony of the network.416
This index maps the phases, φj , to vectors in the complex plane and then averages them. Thus, if the417
neurons are in synchrony, the corresponding vectors will all be pointing in the same direction and r will418
be equal to one. The less synchronous the network is, the smaller the value of r.419
In the following two sections, we briefly outline two different mathematical techniques for analyzing420
these phase oscillator networks in the limit as M goes to infinity.421
24
7.1 Population Density Method422
A powerful method to analyze large networks of all-to-all coupled phase oscillators was introduced by423
Strogatz and Mirollo (Strogatz and Mirollo, 1991) where they considered the so-called Kuramoto model424
with additive white noise425
dφidt
= ωi +ε
M
M∑
j=1
H(φj − φi) + σξ(t), (55)
where the interaction function is a simple sine function, i.e. H(φ) = sin(φ). A large body of work has426
been focused on analyzing the Kuramoto model as it is the simplest model for describing the onset of427
synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators (Acebron et al., 2005; Strogatz, 2000). However, in428
this section, we will examine the case where H(φ) is a general T -periodic function.429
The idea behind the approach of (Strogatz and Mirollo, 1991) is to derive the Fokker-Planck equation430
for (55) in the limit as M → ∞, i.e. the number of neurons in the network is infinite. As a first step, note431
that by equating real and imaginary parts in equation (54) we arrive at the following useful relations432
r cos(2π(ψ − φi)/T ) =1
M
M∑
j=1
cos(2π(φj − φi)/T ) (56)
r sin(2π(ψ − φi)/T ) =1
M
M∑
j=1
sin(2π(φj − φi)/T ). (57)
Next, we note that since H(φ) is T -periodic, we can represent it as a Fourier series433
H(φj − φi) =1
T
∞∑
n=0
an cos(2πn(φj − φi)/T ) + bn sin(2πn(φj − φi)/T ). (58)
Recognizing that equations (56) and (57) are averages of the functions cosine and sine, respectively, over434
the phases of the other oscillators, we see that, in the limit as M goes to infinity (Neltner et al., 2000;435
Strogatz and Mirollo, 1991)436
ran cos(2πn(ψn − φ)/T ) = an
∫
∞
−∞
∫ T
0
g(ω)ρ(φ, ω, t) cos(2πn(φ− φ)/T )dφdω (59)
rbn sin(2πn(ψn − φ)/T ) = bn
∫
∞
−∞
∫ T
0
g(ω)ρ(φ, ω, t) sin(2πn(φ− φ)/T )dφdω, (60)
where we have used the Fourier coefficients of H(φj − φi). ρ(φ, ω, t) is the density of oscillators with437
uncoupled frequency ω and phase φ at time t, and g(ω) is the density function for the distribution of the438
25
frequencies of the oscillators. Furthermore, g(ω) also satisfies∫
∞
−∞g(ω)dω = 1. With all this in mind,439
we can now rewrite the infinite M approximation of equation (55)440
dφ
dt= ω + ε
1
2π
∞∑
n=0
[ran cos(2πn(ψn − φ)/T ) + rbn sin(2πn(ψn − φ)/T )] + σξ(t). (61)
The above nonlinear Langevin equation corresponds to the Fokker-Planck equation441
∂ρ
∂t(φ, ω, t) = − ∂
∂φ[J(φ, t)ρ(φ, ω, t)] +
σ2
2
∂2ρ
∂φ2(φ, ω, t), (62)
with442
J(φ, t) = ω + ε1
T
∞∑
n=0
[ran cos(2πn(ψn − φ)/T ) + rbn sin(2πn(ψn − φ)/T )] , (63)
and∫ T
0ρ(φ, ω, t)dφ = 1 and ρ(φ, ω, t) = ρ(φ + T, ω, t). Equation (62) tells us how the fraction of443
oscillators with phase φ and frequency ω evolves with time. Note that equation (62) has the trivial444
solution ρ0(φ, ω, t) = 1T , which corresponds to the incoherent state in which the phases of the neurons445
are uniformly distributed between 0 and T .446
To study the onset of synchronization in these networks, Strogatz and Mirollo (Strogatz and Mirollo,447
1991) and others, e.g. (Neltner et al., 2000), linearized equation (62) around the incoherent state, ρ0, in448
order to determine its stability. They were able to prove that below a certain value of ε, the incoherent449
state is neutrally stable and then loses stability at some critical value ε = εC . After this point, the450
network becomes more and more synchronous as ε is increased.451
7.2 Continuum Limit452
Although the population density approach is powerful method for analyzing the phase-locking dynamics453
of neuronal networks, it is limited by the fact that it does not take into account spatial effects of neuronal454
networks. An alternative approach to analyzing (52) in the large M limit that takes into account spatial455
effects is to assume that the network of neuronal oscillators forms a spatial continuum (Bressloff and456
Coombes, 1997; Crook et al., 1997; Ermentrout, 1985).457
Suppose that we have a one-dimensional array of neurons in which the jth neuron occupies the458
position xj = j∆x where ∆x is the spacing between the neurons. Further suppose that the connectivity459
matrix is defined by S = {sij} = W (|xj−xi|), where W (|x|) → 0 as |x| → ∞ and∑
∞
j=−∞W (xj)∆x = 1460
For example, the spatial connectivity matrix could correspond to a Gaussian function, W (|xj − xi|) =461
e−|xj−xi|
2
2σ2 , so that closer neurons have more strongly coupled to each other than to neurons that are462
26
further apart. We can now rewrite equation (52) as463
dφ
dt(xi, t) = ω(xi) + ε
∞∑
j=−∞
[W (|xj − xi|) ∆x H (φ(xj , t) − φ(xi, t))] , (64)
where φ(xi, t) = φi(t), ω(xi) = ωi and we have taken 1/M = ∆x. By taking the limit of ∆x → 0464
(M → ∞) in equation (64), we arrive at the continuum phase model465
∂φ
∂t(x, t) = ω(x) + ε
∫
∞
−∞
W (|x− x|) H(φ(x, t) − φ(x, t)) dx, (65)
where φ(x, t) is the phase of the oscillator at position x and time t. Note that this continuum phase466
model can be modified to account for finite spatial domains (Ermentrout, 1992) and to include multiple467
spatial dimensions.468
Various authors have utilized this continuum approach to prove results about the stability of the469
synchrony and traveling wave solutions of equation (65) (Bressloff and Coombes, 1997; Crook et al.,470
1997; Ermentrout, 1985; Ermentrout, 1992). For example, Crook et al. (Crook et al., 1997) were able471
to prove that presence of axonal delay in synaptic transmission between neurons can cause the onset472
of traveling wave solutions. This is due to the presence of axonal delay which encourages larger phase473
shifts between neurons that are further apart in space. Similarly, Bressloff and Coombes (Bressloff and474
Coombes, 1997) derived the continuum phase model for a network of integrate-and-fire neurons coupled475
with excitatory synapses on their passive dendrites. Using this model, they were able to show that long476
range excitatory coupling can cause the system to undergo a bifurcation from the synchronous state to477
traveling oscillatory waves. For a rigorous mathematical treatment of the existence and stability results478
for general continuum and discrete phase model neuronal networks, we direct the reader to (Ermentrout,479
1992).480
8 Summary481
• The infinitesimal PRC (iPRC) of a neuron measures its sensitivity to infinitesimally small pertur-482
bations at every point along its cycle.483
• The theory of weak coupling utilizes the iPRC to reduce the complexity of neuronal network to484
consideration of a single phase variable for every neuron.485
• The theory is valid only when the perturbations to the neuron, from coupling or an external486
source, is sufficiently “weak” so that the neuron’s intrinsic dynamics dominate the influence of the487
27
coupling. This implies that coupling does not cause the neuron’s firing period to differ greatly from488
its unperturbed cycle.489
• For two weakly coupled neurons, the theory allows one to reduce the dynamics to consideration of490
a single equation describing how the phase difference of the two oscillators changes in time. This491
allows for the prediction of the phase-locking behavior of the cell-pair through simple analysis of492
the phase difference equation.493
• The theory of weak coupling can be extended to incorporate effects from weak heterogeneity and494
weak noise.495
Acknowledgements. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants DMS-496
09211039 and DMS-0518022.497
References498
Acebron, J., Bonilla, L., Vicente, C., Ritort, F., and Spigler, R. (2005). The kuramoto model: A simple499
paradigm for synchronization phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys., 77:137–185.500
Bressloff, P. and Coombes, S. (1997). Synchrony in an array of integrate-and-fire neurons with dendritic501
structure. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:4665–4668.502
Brown, E., Moehlis, J., and Holmes, P. (2004). On the phase reduction and response dynamics of neural503
oscillator populations. Neural Comp., 16:673–715.504
Crook, S., Ermentrout, G., Vanier, M., and Bower, J. (1997). The role of axonal delay in the synchro-505
nization of networks of coupled cortical oscillators. J. Comp. Neurosci., 4:161–172.506
Erisir, A., Lau, D., Rudy, B., and Leonard, C. (1999). Function of specific k+ channels in sustained507
high-frequency firing of fast-spiking neocortical interneurons. J. Neurophysiol., 82:2476–2489.508
Ermentrout, B. (2002). Simulating, Analyzing, and Animating Dynamical Systems: A Guide to XPPAUT509
for Researchers and Students. SIAM.510
Ermentrout, G. (1985). The behavior of rings of coupled oscillators. J. Math. Biology, 23:55–74.511
Ermentrout, G. (1992). Stable periodic solutions to discrete and continuum arrays of weakly coupled512
nonlinear oscillators. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 52(6):1665–1687.513
28
Ermentrout, G. (1996). Type 1 membranes, phase resetting curves, and synchrony. Neural Computation,514
8:1979–1001.515
Ermentrout, G. and Kleinfeld, D. (2001). Traveling electrical waves in cortex: Insights from phase516
dynamics and speculation on a computational role. Neuron, 29:33–44.517
Ermentrout, G. and Kopell, N. (1984). Frequency plateaus in a chain of weakly coupled oscillators, i.518
SIAM J. Math. Anal., 15(2):215–237.519
Ermentrout, G. and Kopell, N. (1991). Multiple pulse interactions and averaging in systems of coupled520
neural oscillators. J. Math. Bio., 29:33–44.521
Ermentrout, G. and Kopell, N. (1998). Fine structure of neural spiking and synchronization in the522
presence of conduction delays. Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci., 95(3):1259–1264.523
Goel, P. and Ermentrout, G. (2002). Synchrony, stability, and firing patterns in pulse-coupled oscillators.524
Physica D, 163:191–216.525
Guckenheimer, J. and Holmes, P. (1983). Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations526
of Vector Fields. Springer-Verlag, NY.527
Guevara, M. R., Shrier, A., and Glass, L. (1986). Phase resetting of spontaneously beating embryonic528
ventricular heart cell aggregates. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 251(6):H1298–1305.529
Hodgkin, A. and Huxley, A. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application530
to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol., 117:500–544.531
Hoppensteadt, F. C. and Izikevich, E. M. (1997). Weakly Connected Neural Networks. Springer-Verlag,532
New York.533
Kuramoto, Y. (1984). Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.534
Lewis, T. and Rinzel, J. (2003). Dynamics of spiking neurons connected by both inhibitory and electrical535
coupling. J. Comp. Neurosci., 14:283–309.536
Lewis, T. and Rinzel, J. (2004). Dendritic effects in networks of electrically coupled fast-spiking interneu-537
rons. Neurocomputing, 58-60:145–150.538
Malkin, I. (1949). Methods of Poincare and Liapunov in Theory of Non-Linear Oscillations. Gostexizdat,539
Moscow.540
Malkin, I. (1956). Some Problems in Nonlinear Oscillation Theory. Gostexizdat, Moscow.541
29
Mancilla, J., Lewis, T., Pinto, D., Rinzel, J., and Connors, B. (2007). Synchronization of electrically542
coupled pairs of inhibitory interneurons in neocortex. J. Neurosci., 27(8):2058–2073.543
Mirollo, R. and Strogatz, S. (1990). Synchronization of pulse-coupled biological oscillators. SIAM J.544
Applied Math., 50(6):1645–1662.545
Morris, C. and Lecar, H. (1981). Voltage oscillations in the barnacle giant muscle fiber. Biophys J,546
35:193–213.547
Neltner, L., Hansel, D., Mato, G., and Meunier, C. (2000). Synchrony in heterogeneous networks of548
spiking neurons. Neural Comp., 12:1607–1641.549
Netoff, T., Acker, C., Bettencourt, J., and White, J. (2005a). Beyond two-cell networks: experimental550
measurement of neuronal responses to multiple synaptic inputs. J. Comput. Neurosci., 18:287–295.551
Netoff, T., Banks, M., Dorval, A., Acker, C., Haas, J., Kopell, N., and White, J. (2005b). Synchronization552
of hybrid neuronal networks of the hippocampal formation strongly coupled. J. Neurophysiol.,553
93:1197–1208.554
Neu, J. (1979). Coupled chemical oscillators. SIAM J. Appl. Math., 37(2):307–315.555
Oprisan, S., Prinz, A., and Canavier, C. (2004). Phase resetting and phase locking in hybrid circuits of556
one model and one biological neuron. Biophys. J., 87:2283–2298.557
Pfeuty, B., Mato, G., Golomb, D., and Hansel, D. (2005). The combined effects of inhibitory and electrical558
synapses in synchrony. Neural Computation, 17:633–670.559
Risken, H. (1989). The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications. Springer-Verlag,560
NY.561
Stratonovich, R. (1967). Topics in the Theory of Random Noise. Gordon and Breach, NY.562
Strogatz, S. (2000). From kuramoto to crawford: Exploring the onset of synchronization in populations563
of coupled oscillators. Physica D, 143:1–20.564
Strogatz, S. and Mirollo, R. (1991). Stability of incoherence in a population of coupled oscillators. J.565
Stat. Physics, 63:613–635.566
Van Kampen, N. (1981). Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.567
Williams, T. and Bowtell, G. (1997). The calculation of frequency-shift functions for chains of coupled568
oscillators, with application to a network model of the lamprey locomotor pattern generator. J.569
Comput. Neurosci., 4:47–55.570
30
Winfree, A. T. (1980). The Geometry of Biological Time. Springer, NY.571
Zahid, T. and Skinner, F. (2009). Predicting synchronous and asynchronous network groupings of hip-572
pocampal interneurons coupled with dendritic gap junctions. Brain Research, 1262:115 – 129.573
31